canon rumors FORUM

Like it's bigger brother the RX1, the RX100 stands alone and unrivaled. There's really no other compact that makes logical sense to buy; all others are either deficient or so large you might as well get a mirorless or bring your DSLR + pancake.

I use Canon DSLR's, but for a compact I wound up going with the Sony RX100. I looked at the Canon S110, G1X, and G15 pretty carefully. Ultimately I thought the G series was bigger than what I wanted for this purpose (some pocketable), and I felt the edge in IQ over the S110 warranted the higher price (grudgingly). But as other's have said--if you want to match the RX100 in IQ with a Canon compact, you're kind of stuck with the G series (which isn't really all that compact). That being said--I think the S110 is pretty good as well (judging from the "sample photo books" at Yodobashi Camera where I was shopping).

I do have a complaint with Sony cameras though. I live in Japan, and if I want an English language menu I have to buy a "Sony overseas model" (at a higher price). Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, heck--even Casio--include Japanese and English on their menus (as well as many other languages).

Anyway, I bit the bullet and bought the overseas model for the RX100. But I had been thinking about a NEX in the future as a mirror-less system. Less enthusiastic about it now.

I'm afraid, there's currently none from Canon. If you are willing to sacrifice a little bit of IQ just to get a Canon compact, S100 or S110 is the choice. You may also want to get the G15 which is a little bit bigger. But really, there's nothing from Canon that can go near RX100 in terms of IQ except G1X which isn't exactly pocketable. If you're willing to use a belt bag instead of your pocket then G1X can easily replace an RX100 and more. Oh and there's another one I remember. You can also get an EOS-M with a 22 mm pancake lens. This is the best recommendation I can give you if you want a "near" pocketable alternative to RX100.

Quote

"Physically the EOS M shares similar vital statistics to its nearest rivals. The EOS M body measures 109x67x33mm and weighs 298g with battery but no lens. In comparison Sony's NEX-5N (which also shares an APS-C sensor) measures 111x59x38mm and weighs 269g with battery, making it shorter but a tad thicker. Panasonic's GX1 measures 116x68x39mm and weighs 318g including battery, making it a little wider and thicker. The Olympus E-PL5 measures 111x64x39mm and weighs 325g including battery, and is the only one of the group to include built-in stabilization.

Just for the record, Sony's Cyber-shot RX100 measures 102x58x36mm and weighs 240g with battery, making it smaller and a little lighter overall, and impressively that includes its built-in 3.6x optical zoom that's equivalent to 29-105mm. For completeness I'll finally add that Canon's own PowerShot G1 X measures 117x81x65mm and weighs 534g with battery, making it noticeably chunkier and heavier than all the models above even with its smaller sensor, although it includes a 4x / 28-112mm equivalent optical zoom.

While Sony's RX100 is undoubtedly a miracle of miniaturization, the figures above should tell you the EOS M is roughly the same size and weight as its interchangeable lens peer group when comparing bodies alone. But of course a camera without a lens only tells half the story and bigger differences emerge when you mount your optics. Canon launched the EOS M with just two native lenses, a 22mm f2.0 pancake (61x24mm, 105g, 15cm closest focusing, non-stabilized) and an 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS zoom (61x61mm, 210g, 25cm closest focusing distance). So fit the pancake and the EOS M becomes 57mm thick and 403g, and fit the zoom and it'll become 94mm thick and 508g."

If 'pocketable' is included in your definition of comparable, the RX100 is it (personally, I don't find anything bigger to be really pocketable - I don't wear cargo pants and I don't always have a big coat on). I have the Canon S100, it's a great little camera that at the time of its release had the largest sensor in that size class. That crown now goes to the RX100 (by a wide margin), and if I needed to replace my S100, it would be with the Sony RX100. If you're looking for a less expensive option, the S100 is a great choice - I don't see anything in the S100 that makes it a significant improvement (and it's an ergonomic step back, IMO), and there are good deals to be had on the S100.

I take it there are alternatives, although not necessarily much cheaper ones if you desire comparable quality. The Olympus Stylus XZ-2 seems to be particularly interesting because of its faster lens, which offsets its inferior sensor to some degree, but read for yourself...

I've been very happy with the Leica D-Lux 2. While it's now dated, the current "6" model features aLeica f1.4 lens. The zoom range is adequate, the images excellent, and it fits in my pocket. ThePanasonic equivalent is about half the price.

The RX100 price is way to steep. I ended up paying a net of $169 for my G1X after I received a $400 rebate and sold the free 9500 MK II printer and Adobe software that came with it.Its definitely not a pocketable camera, but also has a bigger sensor. I did try a RX100 at our local camera store.Every camera is a compromise, so get the one that fits your pocket (book)

The Sony sounds like the killer compact. Over Christmas I dipped my toes back in the compact segment with a G15. I had not had a compact since the very ordinary G3 from earlier this century. Really, once you're used to what a proper camera can do, in terms of sheer image IQ, AF, dynamic range and so on, something like the G15 can be a huge disappointment. I only saw what I wanted to see in the reviews. The G15 is now for sale.

A genuine killer compact is one of photography's Holy Grail items, always just out of reach. Maybe later this year...